Green Your Avatar! (If you know what you’re talking about)
I am fully prepared to receive a bashing for being politically incorrect in today’s post, but sometimes that’s the risk you take in pointing out flawed thinking.
Over the past couple of weeks, perhaps the biggest news story has been the election in Iran, widely considered to have been fraudulent, that resulted in the re-election of hardline fundamentalist Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the Presidency. Violence and rioting were the result, sending warring factions into the streets. Rumors cited the arrest of the opposing candidate, and the shutdown of the Internet and cellular networks to quash dissent.
To show solidarity, many people in other countries, especially the United States, have sported the color green, which is the color of the opposing party in Iran. One place this adoption has been quite visible is on Twitter, the Internet sensation of the year, where free services have popped up to automatically color green your avatar (the photo of yourself on your account). I’d estimate that about a quarter of my Twitter friends, at the peak, have greened their avatars. For whatever proportion of the population this sample represents, that’s an astounding amount of support.
I found the greening of avatars to be an excellent example of the importance of keeping your critical thinking on its guard 24×7. In how many greening cases was critical thinking overlooked in favor of a compelling social movement? How much do the avatar greeners really know about this Iranian political party they’re so fervently supporting?
The one thing everyone knows – or think they know – is that the election was fraudulent. Maybe it was. But look at all the assumptions that are being made:
- You’re assuming Ahmadinejad has much less popular support than the election shows. This would be news to me; he’s the most popular and charismatic leader they’ve had in decades.
- You’re assuming the election was indeed fraudulent. Hey, it’s Iran, so that’s certainly plausible; the U.S. and about half the E.U. believe it was fraudulent, but practically every other nation has endorsed the result. How widespread was the alleged fraud? Was it enough to reverse the results? At this stage, nobody can say.
- You’re assuming the dissidents rioting in the streets are on the underdog side of freedom and goodness in Iran. This may well be true, I don’t know, and I don’t assume. Ahmadinejad is only 52, younger than any of his predecessors and a lot younger than his challenger; who’s to say most of Iran’s young people aren’t on his side?
There are two points that most people have probably heard: That the challenger is not a holocaust denier like Ahmadinejad (which is something that can be said of nearly everyone in the world, it hardly makes him a saint); and that his platform stands for “reform”. Well, unfortunately, “reform” in many hardline Islamic countries means a return to strict Islamic principles. I ask the avatar greeners which definition applies here. Did you really know, or did you base your greening upon assumptions? Lip service to “reform” was also a prominent feature of Ahmadinejad’s first run for office. Let me ask some more questions:
- What can you tell us about the opposition’s platform? What do you really know?
- Does the opposition support sharia law?
- Prior to the election, what comments did the challenger make about President Obama?
- Can you name the challenger you are supporting?
- What’s the quality of the information you obtained that convinced you that the challenger’s regime would be any better than any other recent Iranian regimes?
Now, of course, it’s easy to do a quick Google and find the answers to these questions; but my gosh, shouldn’t that Googling have been done BEFORE greening your avatar??
Now don’t rush to accuse me of opposing reform in Iran, or to accuse me of saying “everyone who greened their avatar is an idiot.” I’ve said no such thing, and I don’t think that. I’m sure most people who did have an adequate understanding of the facts, and I absolutely hope that people in Iran choose real reform.
The point here is that the Iranian election results are just one example of the kind of trap that critical thinkers can fall into, given a moment of carelessness. Compelling political and social causes can be powerfully seductive, and can overrule your normal tendency to look into the facts before forming an opinion. Seeing reports of a woman shot in the streets in circumstances you have little good knowledge of should not, necessarily, immediately lead to the incontrovertible conclusion of “I am now publicly supporting (some particular) Iranian political party”. Skeptics need to be open to the possibility that they too can be distracted by anecdotal information and cultural campaigns, the same fault we love to point out in woo believers.
Flame away, that’s what the comment form is there for… :-)
Uh, I would have thought most of the opposition was less that the election was flawed and more the brutal suppression of dissent, myself. Just sayin’.
Yeah I think the main problem people have is the violent suppression of peaceful demonstrators. The politics really make no difference.
Most people I would think are showing their support for the iranian people, not Mousavi anyway.
What’s the quality of the information that led you to conclude the demonstrations were peaceful?
The very fact that the Iranian government has suppressed coverage of the protests by media (especially foreign) and attempted to cut of the flow of information from the people of Iran is strongly indicative of two things.
First, the Iranian government would love to broadcast media of the protesters being violent as this would justify a lot of their actions to suppress the protesters. So, while not definitive, the lack of evidence of protester violence from the state media strongly supports the claims that the protesters are peaceful.
Second, the very fact that the government is engaged in massive information suppression is itself a violation of essential human rights. Even if the government was not doing anything wrong directly to the protesters or in regards to the election, they have done a great deal of wrong by suppressing speech.
Based on that (generally), I have made my twitter icon green as a token of support for freedom and basic human rights in Iran.
And my relatives in iran.
I find it disturbing that nations are endorsing the results or condemning the results without having had any representatives observe the elections. I watch the news in vain hopes of hearing useful information, but I find the news absolutely devoid of information.
All I know so far is that the protesters are being violently suppressed and that (if the translation is correct – I don’t know farsi) the chief religious leader has said that the protests must be stopped at any cost and that a few dead protesters don’t matter. (Perhaps he’s the reincarnation of Marie Antoinette?)
Historically there has always been tension between students at the universities and the religious rulers. The rulers are always trying to suppress free thought in the universities and have always been trying to essentially convert the universities into nothing more than religious schools. Unfortunately those are issues that the Iranians must resolve amongst themselves. The previous civil leader (Khatami), though a devout muslim and always garbed in traditional robes, was actually far more liberal than Ahmadinejad (who always has ‘western’ garb) and the religious rulers were uncomfortable with him. It is not at all unlikely that the religious leaders may be playing games to ensure that their favorite puppet remains the ‘elected’ one. Unfortunately there simply doesn’t seem to be much reliable information available; Iran is so effective at controlling information that we can’t even get a decent estimate on the size and location of religious groups within the country.
Brian,
I was under the impression, as I’ve heard from most people I’ve talked to about it, that coloring the avatars was more about being pro-democracy than it was about Moussavi. (And no, I didn’t have to Google his name, nor did I ‘green’ my avatar.) Is this incorrect?
-D.
Yes, typical for Brian, he hypocritically engages in unsubstantiates leaps by ascribing to targets positions which they have not advocated and with which they often would not agree. This seems especially offensive when one advertises themselves as a “skeptic”.
He also claims to be “completely dependent” on the corporate capitalist form of organization as a justification for his inability to address their advocacy for war and murder of millions – but give him a little homeopathy practicioner trying (irrationally) to make a living helping improve help and he’s merciless!
Oh, while you’re in the mood for looking for trouble Brian, how about a skeptical discussion of libertarianism?
*waits with bucket of popcorn for Libertarian Skepticism blogpost! Weeee!!*
You’ll have to turn to a political blogger for that, sorry!
Nice dodge!
So then why does Shermer post Pro-Libertarian screeds here? This isn’t a political blog is it?
No, but he is a political blogger.
You’d better ask Michael Shermer… he seems to be the big Kahuna of libertarianism in this neck of the Montana Militia woods.
(And Michael, I might disagree with you on your libertarianism, but you are great!)
I agree mostly with Brian here. What does greening an avatar do to help free speech in Iran? Nothing! In fact, for them it is the color of the opposing party (don’t forget that Moussavi has held power in the past, and unleashed it with some tyranny too). Accounts of peaceful protests being brutally broken apart are most likely accurate and find their way to us through respected journalists (Reuters, BBC, etc), and that should indeed be condemned. But does this warrant our blind support for the opposition in Iran? Isn’t that what the US did in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran in the past, with disastrous results?
So, what can people do? Voice their support for freedom of speech and freedom of assembly: fax or mail Iranian embassies. If you are in a position to help Iranians voice their opinions by mirroring their blogs, so to circumvent internet control by their governments, then go ahead!
But making your avatar green does as much good as homeopathy!
Missing the point – getting involved in other ways is a very good thing, but making your avatar green is in no way related to homeopathy. I can, in fact, explain the “green avatar” mechanism very simply without appealing to anything “woo”.
First effect:
People are out there in Iran not sure about who’s listening and sympathetic to their plight. We know that a number of Iranians use twitter, and when they look at the general feed, or search for “Iran” or “#iranelection”, they will get results that have a large number of green icons. This is a small way of cheering them on.
Second effect:
When news organizations are looking for what will interest the public, they try to pay attention to what people are responding to. The number of green avatars and amount of twitter activity have contributed to catching the eyes of large media sources and caused them raise everyone’s awareness of the situation in Iran.
You shouldn’t take everything so literal.
Homeopathy practically has the same effects you describe, all because of the placebo effect and the media’s blind acceptance of the efficacy of super-diluted water. Still, my remarks was more of a skeptical joke than a serious remark, and I think that is clear enough.
You shouldn’t take everything so literal.
Erm. I was misinterpreting you when I thought you were saying green avatars do no good? Doubtful.
Homeopathy practically has the same effects you describe,
Nope. It does not. It has the placebo affect, but that is not the same, on any level, as efforts to encourage a large group of people in their struggle to be free.
Still, my remarks was more of a skeptical joke than a serious remark, and I think that is clear enough.
So you weren’t claiming that green avatars are worthless?!
These are all fair questions to ask, and you’re right, Brian… most people DON’T seem to know the facts, just the cause.
Thanks for pointing it out. :-)
It’s not what they’re for, it’s what they’re against. We KNOW the current Iranian government is corrupt, tyrannical, supports terrorism abroad, and is developing nuclear weapons. Any change seems like an improvement.
Stalin was an evil bastard, but that didn’t stop the UK and US from allying with Soviet Russia against Hitler.
“Any change seems like an improvement” isn’t borne out by history, though. I need only point to our ventures in Latin America regime change to support that.
IMO, the important question that isn’t being answered is how much authority a true reform president would have to effect change. If he can be overruled, de jure or de facto, by the Supreme Leader, then it doesn’t much matter who the president is. (And I don’t know the answer to that question; I’m just saying that the power-sharing arrangement makes the situation that much more complex.)
Ah, yes, the good old Republican wars. El Salvador, Nicaragua, Grenada … Gee, were any Central American nations spared? My memory isn’t so good; I can’t help thinking that the democrats jumped into a few of those wars too.
Don’t forget Vietnam and the ideological war on the commies. We just had to go in and kill people (and kill a lot of our own people) despite the fact that the previous colonizers were brutal and corrupt and that the government at the time was tyrannical. However, in retrospect our involvement in Korea was a good thing.
I agree; this ‘regime change’ stuff is bad news. There are also the allegations that we were involved in the murder of the democratically elected leader of Iran in the 1950s, and propping up the puppet government in the 1970s didn’t earn us any friends.
In the case of Iraq, foreign military intervention may have been the only way to get rid of Saddam Hussein and give the Iraqis half a chance at freedom but I never agreed with Dubbyah’s silly claims that we can walk in and walk out. Even as troops pull out I think we need a government and civilian presence there to continue improving Iraq and the level of education of the general public.
In the case of Iran, even though many people may wish for reform I don’t believe a foreign military presence would ever be welcome (not that we’re welcomed in Iraq, despite what we see on Fox news). We just have to do what we can on a diplomatic level and hope that the Iranians sort out the rest. After all, even China made great improvements once they had more sensible people in control and their prime minister even said that one day China may eventually become a democracy (but not in his lifetime) – it’s just that the changes took a very long time and a great effort by the reformers.
“We KNOW the current Iranian government is corrupt, tyrannical, supports terrorism abroad, and is developing nuclear weapons.”
you could be substitute Iranian government with Israeli, British, Russian, US, etc etc … because I KNOW that all of those are corrupt, tyrannical, support terrorism abroad and HAVE developed nuclear weapons.
the hypocrisy of most westerners who “support” this green bullshit (cf Georgia and Ukraine, whose popular uprisings with their associated colours were largely organised by the CIA and American Democrats) when the 2000 and 2004 American elections were a lot more suspicious than this, and when peaceful protest or opposition is met with violence more often than not, is pathetic. just search youtube for tasers, agent provocateurs etc to see democracy in action.
If we could substitute Iranian government with Israeli, British, US, maybe even Russian, the world would be a better place.
That is all I can’t think of with the political wings in the US and UK denouncing these unfair elections, demanding a recount, and supporting violent anarchistic street exploits – what the hell did they do in response to the 2000 and 2004 US elections?
You mean like the Kent State Massacre?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings
That’s the sort of thing that happens if:
(1) you don’t keep a tight leash with a shock collar on your dogs or
(2) the dogs decide that they work for the fascist government and not for the people
It’s a perfect example of why citizens should never surrender their weapons or give up their right to own weapons – otherwise what can you do when those dogs come after you?
The president at the time of course was Tricky Dicky; it’s such a pity there’s no hell for him to rot in.
The best way to prevent another Kent State Massacre is to make sure the protesters are armed and dangerous.
What an alarmingly stupid thing to say.
Just following MadScientist’s logic.
“It’s not what they’re for, it’s what they’re against. We KNOW the current Iranian government is corrupt, tyrannical, supports terrorism abroad, and is developing nuclear weapons. Any change seems like an improvement.”
I respectfully have to disagree with the last paragraph. Why?.
Remember the Ayatollah Khomeini?. When the Iran-Iraq war started (Iraq invaded, remember), the rationalization was that Hussein was the lesser evil. You know what followed and, because, supposedly, of being the lesser evil, everybody looked elsewhere when Hussein used chemical weapons. So much for any change. Of course the Ahmadinejad-Mousavi thing is very different but what I want to point out is that the alternative to an evil not necessarily is better.
Moreover, how Ahmadinejad got power?. Because of those particularly stupid three words used by a former US president: the famous “axis of evil”. Above all, the proud Iranian people is very nationalistic. You know what followed.
Brian is just a tool for the supreme leader in Iran! He’s being paid by them!!! ;-)
As far as Mousavi’s platform: not all that much different from Ahmedinejab’s. He is not a Holocaust denier, and from what I’ve read, less likely to push the nuclear issue, at least on such a level that the US would be concerned. The clerics have always had control over the candidates that are up for election, so they are unlikely (duh) to allow any candidate that isn’t supportive of sharia law, and candidates would be idiotic to try to win on those grounds. While his rule would probably be more of the same (and since when hasn’t it, anywhere?) the importance of the alleged fraud is not that he was wrongfully denied a seat of power, it is that Iran is a critical centerpoint of MidEast politics, and instability in Iran could translate (has already, if this morning’s Baghdad bombing is anything to go by) into additional instability in an already-volatile area.
At least, this is the impression I get from this weeks’ Economist. Feel free to correct me if I get any facts wrong.
FWIW, I don’t have a Twitter avatar.
I, for one, welcome Brian’s new anti-reform overlords! ;)
I’ve talked with about a dozen Persians now in America and they say that everyone they know here and back home is very well informed about the issues and is very much in favor of reform. Also, they don’t like being shot.
Thanks for reminding me of thinking before acting. Avatar is green at present, I’ll read up on Iranian politicians and make my final choice of color before dinner
Does Dr. Pamela Gay (StarStryder) read your blog? Heh.
I think people are so desperate to be “political”. I say boooooo for greening your avatar.
Your cynicism is not in any way superior to people’s desire to make the world a better place, even if some of them are not willing to do a lot to better the world.
I was most confused when the reform leader announced that he was ready for martyrdom. Makes me question whether or not he’s just another zealot despite it all.
Political candidates in Iran must be approved by the cleric, the supreme religious leadership. It was a lose-lose scenario to begin with. Protesting the overall process, and the election in its entirety, is more appropriate than adopting the color of either cleric-approved candidates (IMHO).
The question becomes then, how else can your twitter icon be changed to show awareness of the plight of the Iranians and support for free speech in Iran? Green is at this point the banner of an oppressed group, and thus sporting a green icon provides a simple and effective shorthand for awareness and support of their right not to be suppressed.
My biggest problem with what’s going on in Iran is the violence directed against protesters. My 3-day switching to a green icon (a photo of a single pea) was my tiny way of showing support for the folks getting beaten with batons, doused with chemical agents dropped from a helicopter, and shot or shot at.
I’ll be the first to admit that I know next to nothing about Iranian politics. I seriously doubt that more than 1% of Americans — or Twitter users based in the U.S., for that matter — know anything about Iranian politics. It annoys me to no end that the conservative right is trying to push our president into making strong statements and taking action that I KNOW he (and we) would regret. Thankfully, we finally have an INTELLIGENT president again. And I guarantee he knows more about Iranian politics than the people pushing him to take action.
I’d like to think that the show of green that I’ve seen on Twitter is support for the oppressed — and nothing more than that. But I’m naive. I switched my icon from the pea to a new, non-green icon on Monday.
Here…here. I feel like you have read my mind, Brian. Keep up the good work!
Firstly thanks for getting people to think about what they are doing (rather than what they think they are doing) and I hope you don’t get too much ininformed hate.
My twitter icon is mostly green, but then it is a photo of a greenburst guitar and has nothing to do with Iran whatsoever.
So Ahmadinejad’s challengers are slightly less repellant than Ahmadinejad! Thats dosn’t mean that I’d want them as the leader of anywhere that I live.
Green is Moussavi’s colour not the colour of reform despite what people believe.
So Ahmadinejad is the preferred choice of the spiritual leaders of Iran, well thats a surprise (seem to remember George W stealing an election)
Since the disputed election has anybody noticed that Iran is now being viewed as a country with a population of people rather than a population of terrorists since the protests began. This is making some western goverments (even more) unsure what to do regarding the uranium enrichment business.
As long as theres doubt over the election the west will be very careful about what they say.
Good post there Brian. Although I had been tempted to jump on the green bandwagon, I resisted because I simply did not know enough about the situation. However, the news we do get portrays Mousavi as someone who is supported by students and academics. I find that I tend to agree with that group of people about politics in general. Obama seemed to have more support at universities than McCain (correct me if I am wrong here, I am not an American) and his views were far more aligned to mine than McCain’s were.
In 1979, students were the ones to take several dozen Americans hostage in, yes, Iran. It’s an error to assume that students and academics in the United States are representative of students and academics in a wholly different society.
You make a good point.
My understanding is that most of the students and young people there are sick of the clerics running their lives, and want more personal freedoms. I don’t know if Mousavi could have, or would have been able to deliver on this hope though.
In Iran, presidential candidates must be approved by the Council of Guardians before beginning their campaigns. This alone guarantees that I wouldn’t support any Iranian candidate. Nonetheless, I see many reasons to support the Iranian *people* in their endeavor.
1) The people are, for the most part, nonviolent. From photographic evidence, about 9/10th of the violence seems to be coming from the police. This evidence could be biased, naturally, but since it’s coming from mainstream media organizations that typically have a pro-government, anti-protester bent (since preying on people’s fears is profitable), any bias that exists is most likely overstating the violence of the public and understanding the violence of the government.
2) The authority of the state rests on its perceived legitimacy by the people. Since the state in fact has no moral legitimacy, any time the people question the authority of the state, for whatever reason, I’ll support them.
3) State-power respects no limits voluntarily. To ensure a free society, it’s important that the people show that they are willing to resist the aggression of the government. Since a massive uprising of Iranian libertarians seems unlikely right now, the current protests are about the best we can hope for.
One of the most insightful observations about democracy that will still fit on a bumper sticker: “If voting really changed anything, they’d make it illegal.” So long as the Council of Guardians approves the candidates, the real power will never be in voting but in deciding who the people can vote for. Ahmadinejad vs. Mousavi is every bit as meaningless a choice as Obama vs. McCain (do you want the guy who is gung-ho about giving billions in corporate welfare to bankers and skeptical but pragmatically-willing to detain people indefinitely at Gitmo, or the guy who is gung-ho about detaining people indefinitely at Gitmo and skeptical but pragmatically-willing to give billions in corporate welfare to bankers?). This is not about one candidate or another, but about a challenge to the underlying system. And I’ll join all other liberty-minded individuals in fully supporting that.
This is one of my favorite posts ever. Well said.
That’s right, folks. Make you Twitter avatar green so you can feel like you’re doing something about supporting freedom and opposing repression. Then when you actually talk to one of the Iranians who are getting shot at for protesting, you can tell them that you supported them by “greening” you avatar. And they will be forever in your debt. You twit.
See my reply up here. If you can point out where I mis-stepped, then I will agree that it is pointless to act in small ways to encourage oppressed people.
And you can tell them that you did nothing but mock their supporters.
Brian, once again you’ve revealed yourself to be a shill for ‘Big Research’. <- SARCASM
But I did learn two important things from this blog:
1) Twitter is not, as I had previously supposed, being taken over by the Irish.
2) That it is important to do research before you make a big public display of outrage about something.
I was reticent about greening my avatar on twitter for just such consideration. I really don’t know. Unfortunately, I have not had the time to get all the facts and determine if I can support Mousavi. Of course, I am not Iranian and my support is probably meaningless anyway.
I do, however, support any efforts for free and open elections everywhere in the world. Outcome notwithstanding, it is not democracy if the standing regime can control the outcome of elections. It happened here in the states, it may have happened in Iran.
i don’t have an avatar to green but I’ve been follwing this issue with interest.
It’s true that all of the candidates were merely shades of the same color of religious conservatism, thanks to the fact that all candidates must be pre-approved by the clerics.
Ahmadinejad isn’t just a conservative dictator though, he actually seems like he’s a little nuts.
I’m hoping that Iranians are getting fed up with the whole theocratic system, and not just Ahmadinejad.
I don’t and won’t twitter so instead I just drew a line around the perimeter of my monitor screen with a green magic marker*.
*Not actually magic. That is just a trade name.
As a side benefit, now it sounds better!
Silly Andrew, my monitor doesn’t make sounds.
What the hell! You mean those things aren’t really magic! Sheeesh. My life now has no meaning. Sigh.
I couple of criticism Brian:
You said: “You’re assuming the dissidents rioting in the streets are on the underdog side of freedom and goodness in Iran. This may well be true, I don’t know, and I don’t assume.”
You here admit to not knowing much about the situation, but then you make the implication that because you don’t know anything, everyone else is just as ignorant. You are arguing against the supporters of the Iranian riots from a point of your own ignorance. This does not sound like solid reasoning.
You said: “Now don’t rush to accuse me of opposing reform in Iran, or to accuse me of saying “everyone who greened their avatar is an idiot.” I’ve said no such thing, and I don’t think that. I’m sure most people who did have an adequate understanding of the facts, and I absolutely hope that people in Iran choose real reform.”
This is truly confusing, because you attempted to use your own igronance of the situation as an argument against others in the other section I highlighted, but then admit here that maybe everybody does know what they are talking about. Then why this entire post, you accuse people of supporting Iran by not engaging in critical thinking, then here, say that maybe they do know more than you, and that they are using critical thinking. I think you did this just to save face if you are wrong, but, by burying this statement at the bottom of your article, it allows the article to do the work of causing people to believe your own political message, while when face with criticism, you can go back and appear more reasonable. It is an oftened used trick by many, place your own ideas up front, then bury alternate opinions deep in the article where most will not notice.
Finally, the “reformist” challenger does suck. I was under the assumption that he did still deny the holocaust. But the consider American elections. Think about who you voted for. Did you agree with everything that person stood for? Did you even agree with half? Or did you vote for the person because of the two legitimate choices we had, they were closest to your ideological position? That is what I did. I probably should have voted for Ralph Nader and not Obama if I were to vote for someone closest to my positions. But I recognize that even small ideological changes in powerful positions can have huge implications down the road. When Bush and Gore campaigned in 2000, they were remarkably close in their positions. They both wanted to increase the size of the military, they both wanted to cut taxes, they both wanted more deregulation, etc, the difference was just to the degrees. Bush “won” the election, and in 2003 we saw just how those small changes would have made a vast difference, when he invaded Iraq. Despite all the similar ideological positions, Gore would not have gone to war with Iraq. Small difference, HUGE outcome.
I think Moussavi is evil, but he is a lesser of the two evils. Only slightly different that of Ahmadinejad. But those small differences (and the precedent of a real election AND political forces blowing to overwhelming public pressure) will in fact lead to huge reform.
I would finally, additionaly add that the green twitter things may not be for support of Moussavi, but for the Iranian people who are risking their lives by demanding the same rights that we have in America. You seem to assume that the coloring of green is for support of the reformist party, when it is really to show support people.
A disclaimer also, I am not on twitter, have not colored anything green, and this is my first real statements on the Iranian election. So it is not like you personally offended me, or called me out on anything I had done.
I am fully prepared to receive a bashing for being politically incorrect in my comment, but sometimes that’s the risk you take in pointing out flawed thinking.
Brian, you are right on.
The events currently taking place in Iran don’t seem to be about political reform at all, but were, initially, about a dispute about who got the most votes legally in the last election, and the right for a recount or re-election. It has, subsequently, also included the govt. in power’s repression/suppression of the vocalization etc. of that dispute. This is a religiously-controlled regime, which a majority of Iranians favored and still do favor, and I wonder why the thinking has gone out into the wild blue yonder that Iranians want anything else than what they are asking for?
No one should be “irate” with you. These are good questions to be asking.
That being said, I did green my avatar. It’s funny because I usually let these kinds of things pass me by, but in the last few weeks I’ve supported two controversial things. Weird. At the time I did it I was indeed hesitant and part of it was peer pressure, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t know anything/enough about the situation.
I think knowing something about Mousavi is important, but in the end a bit irrelevant. I know that he’s only, at best, a smidgen better than Ahmadinejad. But then again, in the 2000 election (the first I got to vote in, bleh), I had to choose between Kerry and Bush. Not that it’s the same in that they’re not both tyrannical, but it’s not always about choosing someone radically different. And we Americans shouldn’t be choosing that for Iran, anyway. Iran will vote for who they want in that position, and it’s all about supporting the methodology of getting to that decision.
From what I know from the media I have been consuming, the evidence is pretty damning that the election was rigged. Obviously, I keep part of my mind open to the idea that it may not have been, but I haven’t seen anyone offer any evidence to the contrary as of yet, and I’ve deemed the evidence I’ve received so far as enough to form a base opinion.
The only issue I could possibly even have with your post is assuming that the majority of people “greening” their avatars do fall into this ignorant category. And this may be. Maybe I’m naive in thinking that people DO do research before supporting a cause.
But in the end I made the choice to “green”. I could be wrong in the end but I made the decision that I made based on the evidence I had, and I’ll live with the consequences of being wrong if I am.
And poo poo on the people who mock internet support for things. While I don’t usually encourage armchair support, in this case there’s not a whole lot we can or should do to actively support this cause. If there IS something to be done for a cause that involves more than just tweeting or posting, then yeah, you should get off your ass and go do it.
But if our election was rigged, wouldn’t it make you happy to know that the EU peeps are twittering in support for us? Personally I think that’s amazing, but maybe I’m one of those ignorant masses *shrugs*.
Great post. Your last two paragraphs are perfect.
“How much do the avatar greeners really know about this Iranian political party they’re so fervently supporting?”
From the tweets that I’ve been reading about the subject matter, I believe that the majority of tweeple going green are supporting an end to brutality and government’s oppression of the protesting Iranian people rather than supporting the opposing political party.
Here’s a thought: try doing a twitter search for “violence”, “brutality”, “beating, “freedom”, “democracy” and “go green” vs. “Moussavi” and “go green”.
I think the quote on the page of the guy who has made it easy to “green your avatar” explains a lot of what most americans are thinking when they do it.
http://helpiranelection.com/
“Show support for the people who fight for democracy at Iran, and change your Twitter avatar to have green overlay or green riboon”
While the opposition party may be using green (and it may be the “official color of the movement” whatever that means), the idea behind it for most greeners is simply to “Show support for the people who fight for democracy”. I’m probably being generous here, but I don’t think anybody has the delusion that the Iranians are going to end up with a saint in charge. I think most people go on the assumption that “anybody but the current guy” is, if not an improvement, at least a change and it is obvious they could use a change.
That said, somewhere around Sunday or Monday (been so busy at work I’ve lost track of what day anything happened here in my corner of the world, let alone in the mid-east) when the protesters began gathering in direct defiance of the religious supreme leader it became an even “bigger” issue for Iran in that the protesters are aiming not just to be able to choose a different candidate hand selected by the religious leaders, but to be able to chose their own candidates.
This was never about supporting one political party over another. Once the Basij attacked Tehran university and students like Change_for_Iran began tweeting their photos and eyewitness accounts we on Twitter helped them get the story out as MSM FAILED completely to do so and are now so regulated that they get most of their news from us! We have continued to help our friends in many way. When they were being teargassed there were many conflicting methods to protect and treat the effects. I (and many others) made sure that correct and safe treatments were sent. We sent proxies when needed and safe download sites. Our first priority is to keep these people safe. When the hospitals became unsafe because people turning up that them were arrested not treated we sent maps and addresses of foriegn embassies who were willing to take in the wounded. I notice that the number of people you follow on twitter is relatively low. Perhaps if you had been recieving the desperate tweets asking for direct help you would not be so quick to criticise this show of solidarity.We are actively trying to help, not posturing. I know many Twitterers both inside Iran and across the world feel that you have kicked now them in the teeth.
Reza Aslan made a great point on The Daily Show last night: (I’m paraphrasing here) Iran is in the tipping point between becoming more like either North Korea or China. Either way, they aren’t becoming, say, Belgium any time soon.
I greened mine, then ungreened it when these very thoughts occurred to me a couple of days later.
Good analysis.
I’ve ‘greened’ my twitter avatar, but I did it more out of support of people standing up in the face of violence and prosecution more than from support of the ‘reform’ party in Iran. I’m quite cognizant of the fact that any reform undertaken by any of Khamenei’s opponents would still be limited by the over-arching theocratic pseudo-democracy that their government is. I also never expected any real likelihood that Khamenei would actually allow a recount or a revote.
I simply wanted to show my solidarity with a group of people who believe that there is something wrong with the recent election and potentially with their system of government in general and were willing to protest in the face of what they knew would be violent and strong resistance to their protesting.
This is not so much skepticism as much as it is being against something because everyone is doing it. What’s next? Railing on people wearing Livestrong bracelets? Criticizing the love of cute and fuzzy puppies? Maybe you should be more critical in your skepticism.
Excellent article Brian. Most of the things I wanted to say have been said already and more concisely, so I’ll just summarize my take on this.
1) Ahmadinejad and his administration don’t behave like they actually won the election.
2) Even if Ahmadinejad won, the previously noted behaviour is wrong, perhaps just more so.
3) The other candidates to my eyes look like carbon copies of Ahmadinejad.
In the end, I decided not to wear green. Yes, some of the things that happened are tragic. Well, SS’ers had families too. (I don’t care for Godwin.) Of course I’m not implying that the protesters are like SS’ers, that was just an extreme example to point out that tragedy doesn’t automatically equal my support. I know that the protesters are suffering. But as long as they stand up for Mousavi instead of making a stand against the system, they’re wasting their effort and the dead and wounded will be for nought. And I can’t condone wasting lives; if you’re going to take risks, take them for a worthy cause.
@37/Anonymous Coward
I dunno, this guy who was on TDS last night (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reza_Aslan) seemed to think that the nature of the protests are changing from just support of a candidate/anger over the election to anger at the system. So I wonder where things are going.
I don’t know if I’m the only one, but I see a bit of a parallel with this issue and the “free Tibet” issue. At least in terms of international support from lots of people who are just going by the sound bite info.
Well, he can bow, kiss his ring, and call him “Supreme Leader” all he wants… but these blood-soaked tyrants are laughing at Obambi. It doesn’t matter what Obama says to the Mullahs now… they lost all respect for him when he started sending them adoring fan mail. They know this smiley plastic mannequin isn’t going to do anything.
–
Ronald Reagan’s support of Poland’s Solidarity in the dark days of the Soviet-ordered crackdown is the model here… not the preposterous straw-man argument of “what are you going to do, invade?” disingenuously presented by the do-nothing, Obama-pologist left.
–
And isn’t this what George W Bush told you was going to happen in the Middle East in the wake of Iraq’s liberation?
–
Maybe that’s why Barack Obama has so little apparent interest in finishing the job in Iran… no matter how much it benefits the US and free world.
–
That, and the fact that he’s already piled all his chips on legitimizing this vile regime- and a democratic revolution at this point would be downright embarrassing for him.
–
http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com/
Well, he can bow, kiss his ring, and call him “Supreme Leader” all he wants… but these blood-soaked tyrants are laughing at Obambi. It doesn’t matter what Obama says to the Mullahs now… they lost all respect for him when he started sending them adoring fan mail. They know this smiley plastic mannequin isn’t going to do anything.
–
Ronald Reagan’s support of Poland’s Solidarity in the dark days of the Soviet-ordered crackdown is the model here… not the preposterous straw-man argument of “what are you going to do, invade?” disingenuously presented by the do-nothing, Obama-pologist left.
–
And isn’t this what George W Bush told you was going to happen in the Middle East in the wake of Iraq’s liberation?
–
Maybe that’s why Barack Obama has so little apparent interest in finishing the job in Iran… no matter how much it benefits the US and free world.
–
That, and the fact that he’s already piled all his chips on legitimizing this vile regime- and a democratic revolution at this point would be downright embarrassing for him.
Well, you can march into Tehran yourself. The US Armed Forces have more important things to do in Iraq (thanks to Dubbyah) and Afghanistan. The folks in the military are already serving unusually long tours and that’s bad for them and for their families; it’s also bad for the taxpayers who have to fork out the hundred billions or so each year to support our troops in foreign territory.
I posted about this on Skepchick a few days ago. http://skepchick.org/blog/?p=7794#comment-64884. Just saying ;)
I’m glad someone said this. People all seem too willing to just follow. It reminds me of Jenny, the person whom I currently hate the most. People just follow her anti-vac, without really questioning it. Think, people, think!
I not only greened my avatar, but I also changed it to a picture of Neda. Go write an article against that too.
I know very well what I stand for: the people’s right to go out on the street and demand fair elections without being attacked for it.
I’m glad you in turn are so confident about what you don’t stand for. *shrugs*
If nothing else, you deserve approval for promoting a more-accurate use of the term ‘politically incorrect’. For quite a while it’s been code for, “I’m going to say something offensive and then accuse you of being hypersensitive if you take offense.”
How patronizing.
LMAO Compare the pro-Ahmadinejad rallies with the anti-Ahmadinejad protests. All right, if Ahmadinejad is so much younger and more charismatic than Mousavi, why are young people risking their lives for Mousavi? Maybe because the protests aren’t really about Mousavi but what he represents: less moral police, more women’s rights, and better relations with the West.
It’s possible that Ahmadinejad would’ve won a fair election, but do you really have any doubt that the deck was stacked in Ahmadinejad’s favor? Well we better wait for a fair and transparent recount. Oh wait, Iran is not a democracy. Maybe that’s what the protests were about.
I think the green, which is be the symbol of the political party has also become the symbol of the protesters. So I think you can safely twitter green to show sympathy with the protesters not to support a particular party platform.
What is being protested here is not loosing the election, but the apparent total fraudulence of the results. It was a giant landslide, the results were announced before there was time for a complete vote and they did not add up to a tune of over 3 million votes.
Now as skeptic, I cant help thinking if I were in the supreme council’s place and I thought the results were true, I would be in favor of a rerun, and make it transparent. That way the results would be similar, and everyone would simmer down, no need for all this bad publicity.
However if the favored candidate got nowhere near that kind of majority, or even lost, to retain credibility, I had better vow the election results were fair and crack down on anyone who disagrees.
Brian Dunning on the eve of Ukraine’s Orange Revolution:
“How much do you know about Viktor Yushchenko? Was he really poisoned? Was the election really rigged? I don’t know. Yanukovych is popular with the old ladies in Eastern Ukraine.”
I would like to add – although this might have been stated, I didn’t read the entire thread – that while the greening of avatars may have started out as support for Mousavi (I’m not sure if this is the case, do we know how it started? The spread of these kinds of things is notoriously hard to track, and even harder to backtrack), the enormous amount of support for Iranian democratic reform that has since grown on Twitter, Facebook and all manner of websites and forums has taken on a life of its own. No longer centered on the principal players of the Iranian election, there seems to be a multitude of differing opinions, ideas, theories and agendas, some related to Mousavi or one of the other candidates on the opposition, and some thoroughly unrelated. The social networks have no regard for the origin of the green avatars meme. As always on the Internet, ideas like this spread rapidly and evolve almost as fast as they are spreading. The greening of avatars is no longer equal to the support of Mousavi and his quest for the presidency. It has taken on a multitude of meanings, the central theme being democratic reform in Iran and a full rerun of the election. My point is that it no longer seems appropriate to me to criticize the use of the green avatar as related to Mousavi. The Internet community appears to have successfully co-opted the green avatars meme and developed it to where it now has a broader, entirely different meaning.
Brian, I thoroughly agree that the potential for democratic reform under Mousavi would be equally gloomy as under Ahmadinejad. The real power lies with the Ayatollah and for serious reform to take place, that power needs to be handed over to the Iranian people. I don’t believe in armed revolution as a rule, although there are times when it is clearly the only way forward. Whether this is the case in Iran today, I don’t know.
Cheers!
— Andy from Sweden
First question: how many people (those that chose to/not to “green” their avatars) were actually informed leading up to the election? I think a lot of people would be better served by reading up on the news stories previewing the election, as they give a much better idea of the expectations from the election.
I have to admit that while reading the previews of the Iranian presidential election, I was under the impression that the race was going to be very close between 2 or 3 candidates. When the actual results were shown, I was pretty surprised to find a landslide victory.
Second question: Before the election, were Mousavi’s supporters ready to just say “Okay, you guys won, we concede” to the results if they lost? I don’t have the answer to that, but I think there were some supporters that wouldn’t back down, no matter what evidence was shown to them.
That said, I do find the communication limitations imposed on the people to be quite oppressive.
Iran’s theocratic system allows for a very watered-down form of democracy, different enough from that found in America that I think it’s ridiculous to hold the same expectations as for American elections (in both the good and bad). Personally I’d prefer if they scrapped the whole “rule by religion” idea.
Just hope you’re supporting those people for being oppressed and wanting fundamental change in their government, and not just because their party lost and they’re angry about it.
Yeah you would never get the wrong guy winning in an American election. ;-)
Mousavi isn’t perfect, but I think he is much better than the opposition. For one, he wants to expand the rights of women and disband the moral police. More importantly, these protests and a win by him could lead to a much larger reform movement in the future which would, hopefully, go much further. The ironic thing is, if the election was fraudulent, the regime has put itself in much more danger of actual reform than if they had just let Mousavi win. Mousavi would’ve been powerless. Now there is a real opportunity to de-throne the supreme leader.
Well. I agree with you Brian. I was too lazy to check out the deets of the Iran protests at the time, so I couldn’t justify myself changing my avatar green.
Thanks for writing a brave post.
Clearly a great post judging by the response!
However I do think you are setting up something of a straw man argument. You are making far too many assumptions, the first being the motivation for people greening their avatars. I like many others did this in support of the Iranian people and democracy, rather than Mousavi directly. In fact if you read the tweet that prompted many to change their avatar it is abundantly clear what it is asking you to support
“Show support for democracy in Iran add green overlay to your Twitter avatar with 1-click – http://helpiranelection.com/”
There is absolutely no mention of Mousavi at all. I know a little about Mousavi and Iranian politics, and I have learnt a bit more over the past few days, but still not enough to vote for or against him nor is it my place to.
I agree with you Brian, that many are just “following the crowd.”
The real test of an ideology’s support is how it stands up under persecution. Just consider the civil rights movement, or the 30 million Christians who have been killed for their faith in just the 20th century, or other religious/civil persecutions.
**How many of those who have donned green would do so if it put their life at risk?**
Well at least we don’t have to think about the Iranians anymore now that Michael Jackson has died. Let’s all color our Twitter icons spangly silver! Solidarity!
Does everyone realize Mousavi is a Libertarian and that Twitter was created by and is operated by Libertarians and that both Farrah Fawcett and Michael Jackson died for the Libertarian cause?
How do people feel about Libertariansim?
How do you feel about so-called Libertarians who defend the sovereignty of tyrannical regimes rather than advocating for liberty and human rights? Real America Firsters.
Well, Max, they remind of those people who cannot lower their sense of moral superiority long enough to take a joke. Ever run into one of those guys?
All Brian was saying is that greening the avatar is knee jerk without doing a little home work. I agree. I did the homework, and I didn’t green, not because I don’t support this movement, but because I know that Moussavi is nothing more then the lesser of two evils. When the Iranian people rally in protest to over throw sharia law and install a democracy that TRULY represents universal human rights, I will green my avatar.
I will green my avatar no more forever.
Sir-
One cannot, and should not try, to keep ‘your critical thinking on its guard 24×7′. We make an uncountable number of decisions every day that rest on simple heuristics; trying to examine every one would be an exercise of interminable navel-gazing.
The mark of a critical thinker should be a willingness to openly revisit and re-evaluate assumptions, nothing more.
And, yes, I greened my avatar. Even after Googling your questions, it is still green. It’s an action based on a hypothesis – what can be more scientific than that?
You speak of interminable navel-gazing as if it’s a bad thing.
Eat this:
Swedish company greens its logo in support of the Green Revolution of ’88.
http://www.callex.se
Brian is merely stating that before blindly showing support for a movement or point of view, get to know some of the facts. He is using the “green the avatar” as an example.
And I am merely stating that sufficient facts were available at the time I greened mine and this is probably true of many others. If it were Communists protesting peacefully in the streets of Washington with red banners and I found out the U.S. police/military had been sent to beat them up and kill them, I’d redden my avatar in a nanosecond. Nothing more was needed here than information about gross violations of the most basic Human Rights. Politics and religion become entirely negligible.
More evidence that green isn’t just about a certain candidate anymore, but about freedom from islamic oppression: after listening to Mousavi’s speech (broadcast via telephone and through a megaphone) the green protesters gathered today at Qoba mosque turn around to give a loud welcome to the other reformist candidate, Mehdi Karroubi, as he arrives among them.
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1073106267963&ref=mf
Here’s Karroubi making his way through the crowd earlier along his path to the mosque:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgUvDmcwmWU
People are free to green their avatars, but do they forfeit the right to make fun of yellow ribbons?